Murphy v. Co-operative Laundry Co. of St. Paul
| Decision Date | 10 February 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 35041,CO-OPERATIVE,35041 |
| Parties | MURPHY v.LAUNDRY CO. OF ST. PAUL, Inc. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In an action where plaintiff delivered a dress to defendant for dry cleaning and it was not returned, the burden was on the bailee to prove not only the loss of the dress, but also that the loss did not occur by reason of its negligence.
2. In an action where it was established that a dress was delivered to a dry-cleaning establishment and was not returned, evidence produced by defendant explaining the system under which it operated with a view of showing that under such a system it was improbable or impossible for any garment delivered to it to be lost, and defendant's failure to produce any testimony to explain the loss of this particular dress, Held insufficient to prove that the loss did not occur by reason of its negligence.
3. Award of damages not excessive.
Felhaber & Larson, St. Paul, for appellant.
Nelson & Mohan, St. Paul, for respondent.
Appeal by defendant from judgment of the municipal court of St. Paul.
Defendant operates a laundry and dry-cleaning establishment. For a number of years plaintiff had been its regular customer. On or about April 15, 1947, plaintiff delivered a dress to defendant for dry cleaning. It was not returned. After trial without a jury, judgment was ordered for plaintiff.
1. This court in Davis v. Tribune Job-Printing Co., 70 Minn. 95, 72 N.W. 808, laid down the rule that when a bailor proves that the bailee failed or refused to return th goods on demand, this throws the burden on the bailee to prove not only the loss of the goods, but also that he exercised such care in keeping them as the nature of the bailment required him to exercise. This rule has been followed in numerous cases and has been termed by the court a practical working rule and the only one. Defendant's burden was 'not merely' that of going forward with proofs, 'nor a shifting burden, but a burden of establishing before the jury that its negligence did not cause the loss.' Hoel v. Flour City Fuel & Transfer Co., 144 Minn. 280, 281, 175 N.W. 300. Travelers' Indemnity Co. v. Fawkes, 120 Minn. 353, 139 N.W. 703, 45 L.R.A., N.S., 331; Rustad v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 122 Minn. 453, 142 N.W. 727; Steenson v. Flour City Fuel & Transfer Co., 144 Minn. 375, 175 N.W. 681; Stine v. Hines, 148 Minn. 132, 181 N.W. 321; West v. First State Bank, 158 Minn. 342, 197 N.W. 850; Harding v. Shapiro, 165 Minn. 248, 206 N.W. 168; White v. Sullivan, 174 Minn. 549, 219 N.W. 908; Solberg v. Minneapolis Willys-Knight Co., 177 Minn. 10, 224 N.W. 271; Cargill Grain Co. v. Cleveland-Cliffs S.S. Co., 182 Minn. 516, 235 N.W. 268; Peet v. Roth Hotel Co., 191 Minn. 151, 253 N.W. 546; Dennis v. Coleman's Parking & Greasing Stations, Inc., 211 Minn. 597, 2 N.W.2d 33; Zanker v. Cedar Flying Service, Inc., 214 Minn. 242, 7 N.W.2d 775. The loss itself is no defense; it must be a loss unaccompanied by any culpable fault of the bailee. 6 Am.Jur., Bailments, § 222.
2. We have here a situation where a specific chattel was delivered by the bailor to the bailee and where the bailee failed to return it. The burden was therefore on defendant to prove the loss of the goods and also to establish that its negligence did not cause such loss. To meet this burden, defendant offered the following testimony by its driver: That he had been employed by defendant as a driver for over 30 years; that he had picked up plaintiff's laundry for ten years, oftentimes twice a week; that he picks up laundry at 75 different stops a day; that he remembers being at plaintiff's house in the month of April 1947; that he picked up the dry cleaning in the basement; that plaintiff made two piles of clothing, giving one to the driver, and stating that she was going to give away or sell the other one; that he does not know what was in the two...
To continue reading
Request your trial